If non sync evicts are configured, then cyclic buffer should be used. No? Thanks!
Yakov On Sep 11, 2015 09:03, "Alexey Goncharuk" <[email protected]> wrote: > Guys, > > I was thinking about ordering updates on backups so that we are able to > send entry processors on backups as we do in TRANSACTIONAL cache. > > What if we send not only the new version of an entry, but also the old > version (the one that was replaced). > > Let's say we have an entry with version v0, and we apply updates with > versions v1, v2, v3. Instead of sending just (val1, ver1), (val2, ver2), > (val3, ver3) we can send (val1, ver0->ver1), (val2, ver1->ver2), (val3, > ver2->ver3). In this case even if updated are processed on a backup node in > a different order, we can queue updates and wait until all updates are > received (like we did for ordered messages a while ago). > > The only concern that I have is that independent evicts cannot happen on a > backup node because the version of an entry should always match on primary > and backup nodes - so we should always initiate evict from primary node and > use version to evict an entry - basically, treat evict as a remove, but > with no write-through. > > Thoughts? >
